Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

De-platforming fascists works

Options
1…1718192123

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    SexBobomb
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    PostWoke wrote: »
    Uhh... they're a private company? Ever seen 'management retains the right to refuse admission' signs all around the country?

    What makes you think he's entitled to use Twitter????

    Hilarious conspiracy hole you're going down, sifting through a little girl's life. Vile. Seriously.

    "Twitter is now a public company having successfully opened up its Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), just five years after the social network launched.Nov 7, 2013"


  • Options
    #603
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    "Twitter is now a public company having successfully opened up its Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), just five years after the social network launched.Nov 7, 2013"
    and that makes no difference to PostWokes point.


  • Options
    #604
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    "Twitter is now a public company having successfully opened up its Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), just five years after the social network launched.Nov 7, 2013"

    Oh hun, you tried.

    You think putting a company up on the stock market makes a jot of difference to their own, privately set TOS?

    :pac::pac::pac:


  • Options
    #605
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I’m not a moderator, but let’s keep it civil shall we? I was enjoying our discussion Veritas

    I have enjoyed your discussion too. I appreciate that you have represented me fairly. Its just annoying when other posters on here come on to make legitimate, but ultimately completely irrelevant points, somewhat vaguely similar to what is being discussed in what seems like an effort to obfuscate the argument.

    How is it you can accept the hyperbole of Greta and her fans as hyperbole(i.e. the world is going to end in 12 years),

    Yet when Avi Yemini uses hyperbole ""They[UN] did not steal your childhood, your parents did" you suddenly increase the standard of proof.

    This is my problem with these laws and crimes more than anything else, the fact that they will always be applied unfairly and with bias. It always comes down to a who. Twitter are free to do what they wish, but when there is a viable option and people realize what they are doing, it won't be long slipping down the rankings of most used social media.


  • Options
    #606
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Cataleya Huge Teamwork wrote: »
    Rights? Are you talking about constitutional rights or something?

    Twitter can ban whoever they like, whenever they like and they don't have to explain the reasons either. "What right does twitter have..." must be some sort of a joke.

    You could argue the Nazis can kill whoever the want they are their prisoners. Is this not the same argument to authority?

    I'm talking about the human right to free speech as described by the U.N. Yes private companies are free to do what they wish, but in this specific example of Avi Yemini- do you think it was fair that they banned him? Was it a clear cut case of breaking their rules?

    Or did they interpret their rules to suit themselves?(Big difference)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    You could argue the Nazis can kill whoever the want they are their prisoners. Is this not the same argument to authority?

    No, because no one has killed this berk for his hate speech.


  • Options
    #608
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    You told me so

    Fair enough. Since you listen to my opinion let me tell you that I meant "Australian Tommy Robinson" 'tongue-in-cheek' in the way that his critics describe him.

    I am yet to see him actually say something bad(racist misogynist etc..) or controversial(I'm open to being proved wrong). Yet I see that claim made of him a lot.

    I have seen him say things others are too afraid to say; I advise you watch that clip and formulate your own opinion, which might just be that this guy is being unfairly maligned and unfairly prosecuted.

    If you have some source that knows this guy is bad, please do let me know and share the clips; I'm willing to change my mind.

    Link (90 second clip)


  • Options
    #609
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    No, because no one has killed this berk for his hate speech.

    You noted earlier "Ever seen the right to refuse admission signs around the country?"

    Does this give a company the right to refuse someone because they are black?

    You know there are higher rules that the TOS of companies right? Human rights that aren't allowed to be infringed upon?


  • Options
    #610
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    You noted earlier "Ever seen the right to refuse admission signs around the country?"

    Does this give a company the right to refuse someone because they are black?

    You know there are higher rules that the TOS of companies right? Human rights that aren't allowed to be infringed upon?

    The company has the right to refuse admission. They don't actually have to tell you why. Just that you're out.

    Posting on twitter is not a human right LMFAO


  • Options
    #611
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    The company has the right to refuse admission. They don't actually have to tell you why. Just that you're out.

    Posting on twitter is not a human right LMFAO

    The company has a right to refuse a black person because he is black... Jesus, I didn't actually think you'd take that position.
    Very telling though, I'm not sure if someone has identified your authoritarian beliefs to you before.

    But if they do tell you why and it's a bull**** reason, does this change things?

    E.g. Avi Yemini was told "Violating rules against platform manipulation and spam"

    When it was clear he was doing no such thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I have enjoyed your discussion too. I appreciate that you have represented me fairly. Its just annoying when other posters on here come on to make legitimate, but ultimately completely irrelevant points, somewhat vaguely similar to what is being discussed in what seems like an effort to obfuscate the argument.

    How is it you can accept the hyperbole of Greta and her fans as hyperbole(i.e. the world is going to end in 12 years),

    Yet when Avi Yemini uses hyperbole ""They[UN] did not steal your childhood, your parents did" you suddenly increase the standard of proof.

    This is my problem with these laws and crimes more than anything else, the fact that they will always be applied unfairly and with bias. It always comes down to a who. Twitter are free to do what they wish, but when there is a viable option and people realize what they are doing, it won't be long slipping down the rankings of most used social media.

    claiming that parents are abusing their child should be reason enough for a banning. and i would be very surprised if it was an isolated incident.


  • Options
    #613
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Fair enough. Since you listen to my opinion let me tell you that I meant "Australian Tommy Robinson" 'tongue-in-cheek' in the way that his critics describe him.

    I am yet to see him actually say something bad(racist misogynist etc..) or controversial(I'm open to being proved wrong). Yet I see that claim made of him a lot.

    I have seen him say things others are too afraid to say; I advise you watch that clip and formulate your own opinion, which might just be that this guy is being unfairly maligned and unfairly prosecuted.

    If you have some source that knows this guy is bad, please do let me know and share the clips; I'm willing to change my mind.

    Link (90 second clip)

    i'd say that claiming parents are abusing their child is pretty controversial.


  • Options
    #614
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    claiming that parents are abusing their child should be reason enough for a banning. and i would be very surprised if it was an isolated incident.

    He DID say that. But using hyperbole that greta herself was using, saying she was abused Go watch the video.


  • Options
    #615
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    yoke wrote: »
    He basically just insulted her and her parents, saying “they should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put her through”.

    So his response to an argument is to switch to taunting his opponent. And then he cries when someone hits him back
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    He DID say that. But using hyperbole that greta herself was using, saying she was abused Go watch the video.

    he is a whiny man-child put out by an actual child having an opinion. i have no intention of watching his video.


  • Options
    #616
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    he is a whiny man-child put out by an actual child having an opinion. i have no intention of watching his video.

    So 'basically insulting' is enough to deplatform people. Got it.

    He was using the same hyperbole that Greta herself was using; in a fashion known as satire.

    She herself claimed to have been 'abused' by the older generation of people because of climate change...

    To ban Avi Yemini and and give Greta a huge platform for using the same hyperbole is the very reason I am against laws like this. They only get applied with bias.


  • Options
    #617
    The Late Late Show
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭The Late Late Show


    The best way to deplatform fascists is to work against them. Sadly, today EVERY country in the world in the end capitulate to the so-called USA. In turn, the current president of the so-called USA capitulated to Mike Pompeo, who in turn capitulates to the Saudi Arabians. The Saudis can threaten 1970s style oil crises and then the Americans can go all Republic of Gilead to bully the rest of the world and no one is standing up to this cr@p because the world is addicted to Saudi oil and the Gileadean dollar.


  • Options
    #618
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    So 'basically insulting' is enough to deplatform people. Got it.

    He was using the same hyperbole that Greta herself was using; in a fashion known as satire.

    She herself claimed to have been 'abused' by the older generation of people because of climate change...

    To ban Avi Yemini and and give Greta a huge platform for using the same hyperbole is the very reason I am against laws like this. They only get applied with bias.

    he was in his arse. just another right wing edgelord.


  • Options
    #619
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I have enjoyed your discussion too. I appreciate that you have represented me fairly. Its just annoying when other posters on here come on to make legitimate, but ultimately completely irrelevant points, somewhat vaguely similar to what is being discussed in what seems like an effort to obfuscate the argument.

    Cheers, and likewise!
    How is it you can accept the hyperbole of Greta and her fans as hyperbole(i.e. the world is going to end in 12 years),

    Yet when Avi Yemini uses hyperbole ""They[UN] did not steal your childhood, your parents did" you suddenly increase the standard of proof.

    The key difference here is that what Greta is saying is not a personal insult against anyone, whereas what Avi is saying is. If you just randomly post gloomy messages (like Greta), I doubt anyone is going to ban you. However if you attack someone, then as part of society we are generally going to defend them, as long as they didn’t attack you first.

    BTW I’m not accepting the hyperbole of Greta and her fans, if indeed they are saying the world is going to end in 12 years (I’ll take your word on it that they actually said that).


  • Options
    #620
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    super_furry wrote: »
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-says-hes-broke

    Far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is broke and no longer able to make a living selling racism, xenophobia and bullying after being banned from twitter and facebook.

    "I spent years growing and developing and investing in my fan base, and they just took it away in a flash."

    Right-wing conman Jacob Wohl, who was banned from twitter earlier this year, echoed Yiannopoulos' statements.

    You love to see it.

    Someone who tried to make a business out of being an arsehole can't do that any more.

    Cry me a river.


  • Options
    #621
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    So 'basically insulting' is enough to deplatform people. Got it.

    Try encouraging the harassment of people (including children) and spreading hate speech that leads to real world violence. Just look what happened a few hundred miles from him in New Zealand.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    The key difference here is that what Greta is saying is not a personal insult against anyone, whereas what Avi is saying is.
    "They should be jailed[parents] for the child abuse they put her[Greta] through"
    I'm assuming this is the insult in question. Another poster pointed out in another thread "Perhaps posing and promoting in front of the entire world isn't the best place for a young girl with well documented issues to be put". She is clearly reading from a script and even admits herself "Don't listen to me, listen to scientists".
    Could one not seriously hold the opinion that this is tantamount to child abuse? Especially considering the context of the discussion that Greta has been using such inflammatory language as hyperbole, I can see how this can be taken as an insult, but can you see how it may also be an opinion?
    If you just randomly post gloomy messages (like Greta), I doubt anyone is going to ban you. However if you attack someone, then as part of society we are generally going to defend them, as long as they didn’t attack you first.
    It's boiling down to what is our interpretation of an attack again. This is why it should have a rigid definition of immediate harm. Greta's words could certainly be seen as an 'attack' on people. Imagine if it stirs up hate between eco warriors and regular people; which very well could happen after this.
    BTW I’m not accepting the hyperbole of Greta and her fans, if indeed they are saying the world is going to end in 12 years (I’ll take your word on it that they actually said that).

    That's fair enough and consistent. But given that they are; is it not fair of her critics to also use hyperbole? This is the type of bias that always gets applied to these cases. Who decides instead of what the law says. We need the tightest most stringest rules/laws when it comes to crimes of this nature!

    For me Avi Yemini's 'offence' just didn't pass that test.


  • Options
    #623
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    Try encouraging the harassment of people (including children) and spreading hate speech that leads to real world violence. Just look what happened a few hundred miles from him in New Zealand.

    That's exactly what Greta is doing, have you seen her latest speech?

    https://twitter.com/WIRED/status/1176166230425780224

    "If you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, you are evil and that I refuse to believe"

    Stirs up hate. Watch this space I will post up some eco warriors doing something in the next few days in the name of Greta. I guarantee it.


  • Options
    #624
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Someone who tried to make a business out of being an arsehole can't do that any more.

    Cry me a river.

    Are you talking about Galileo Galilei?


  • Options
    #625
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    Do do realise that the Nazis were left wing, the narrative has changed over the years but even the name nazi means National Socialist German Workers' Party.

    Stupid. Just stupid.

    SMFH.


  • Options
    #626
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Are you talking about Galileo Galilei?

    Figaro.


  • Options
    #627
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    That's exactly what Greta is doing, have you seen her latest speech?

    Can you stop deflecting for a singular second to realize that no, that's not what she's doing, she's trying to raise awareness about climate change, and secondly, you're still obsessing about a teenage girl who has done nothing wrong.

    Address my last post without deflecting. Let's see if you even can.

    Let's see you express even a tenth of this outrage towards mass murderers like the ones in New Zealand and Quebec, if you don't mind. I'll wait.


  • Options
    #628
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    Serious question to those who are against fascism! Do you knows agree with what AntiFa are doing and how they are going about it? Regards.


  • Options
    #629
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    Serious question to those who are against fascism! Do you knows agree with what AntiFa are doing and how they are going about it? Regards.

    i would have thought everyone was against fascists except fascists. not really something you can be neutral about.


  • Options
    #630
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i would have thought everyone was against fascists except fascists. not really something you can be neutral about.

    I'm not being smart but you didn't answer the question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    you're still obsessing about a teenage girl who has done nothing wrong.

    Address my last post without deflecting. Let's see if you even can.

    Let's see you express even a tenth of this outrage towards mass murderers like the ones in New Zealand and Quebec, if you don't mind. I'll wait.

    People used to obsess about Jordan Chandler as well. He equally did nothing wrong. Can you see why people obsessed about him? Your strawman is quite telling, go for the lowest easiest fruit, and if there are none available create my own.

    How does deplatforming fascists stop mass murderers in New Zealand and Quebec?

    My outrage is in stopping people from expressing themselves freely. Your red herrings of nazi mass murders only serve to prove Godwin's Law.


Advertisement